Laserfiche WebLink
I After reaching an impasse in the negotiations of this settlement, the Settling Parties <br /> 2 finally compromised and agreed that plaintiff LPL would accept, in lieu of a substantial increase in <br /> 3 the cash portion of the settlement,an assignment of all of the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants' <br /> 4 and others' claims, specifically including those for contribution. The Settling Parties further <br /> 5 agreed that the consideration given by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and others to <br /> 6 plaintiff LPL in the form of assigned contribution claims constituted an essential component of the <br /> 7 total consideration for the final settlement reached in this action. The Settling Parties reached this <br /> 8 compromise following months of heated dialogue as to the nature and extent of the consideration <br /> 9 given to settle both this action and the related state court action. Without this compromise and the <br /> 10 inclusion of these assigned direct and contribution claims, no settlement could have been achieved <br /> 1 I by and between the Settling Parties. <br /> 12 The Settling Parties further respond that the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants' <br /> 13 claims against the Equipment Manufacturers for contribution are merely claims for the equitable <br /> 14 allocation of the joint and several liability imposed on the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. As <br /> 15 a matter of law, the fundamental nature of these contribution claims has not been altered by their <br /> 16 assignment to plaintiff LPL. Accordingly, the Equipment Manufacturers' assertion that the <br /> 17 assignment of the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants' contribution claims creates a double <br /> 18 recovery is without foundation in the law and their proposal to include a specific bar on pursuing <br /> 19 these contribution claims is inappropriate and is rejected by the Settling Parties. <br /> 20 Comment#22: <br /> 21 Section Addressed: Section XVI, Consistency With NCP <br /> 22 Page 25, Line 23-27 <br /> 23 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 24 The Commenter asserts that the Settling Parties cannot agree and the Court cannot <br /> 25 find that all costs incurred in undertaking the activities required by the Consent Decree or <br /> 26 performing, overseeing,or monitoring the performance of the Work are "necessary and consistent <br /> 27 with the NCP" in that the Work contemplated has not been completed and the Proposed Remedial <br /> 28 <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -29- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 rci 10:43 AM <br />